52 replies to this topic

[Wronschien]

Hello (btw this is my first topic here yay !)

Just a simple question though : why weren't "Live and let die" and "The man with the golden gun" shot in cinemascope (well maybe not cinemascope, I'm no expert in film fomats) just like the few previous ones and every other one since then ?

[Loomis]

This is a question that gets asked a lot in Bond fandom and no one seems to have provided the definitive answer. Cost-cutting is often cited as the reason, although I doubt that shooting in widescreen was any more expensive (and many productions with budgets far lower than Bond were using widescreen at the time). Personally, I can only conclude that it was a deliberate stylistic choice on the part of Guy Hamilton to create a new flavour for the Moore era (with echoes of DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, which were shot in the same ratio).

[tim partridge]

No, true anamorphic was/is more expensive, the lenses are much slower compared to spherical lenses meaning that you need bigger lights to get to deeper fstops in order to get an exposure. On a Bond where there's process work and high speed miniatures on top of that it only gets more expensive. Additionally art direction is more pricey on a Bond especially, and Hamilton was a big fan of wide angle lenses which using the full negative area would have made things all the more pricey on anamorphic. Then you have the extra cost of lighting up far off locations at nighttime (notably on LALD), which naturally costs more with anamorphic. Interesting that Ken Adam was not available for these Hamilton Moore Bond movies, given how his 007 sets were consciously designed for true anamorphic and wide angle lenses.

I am surprised actually that Harry Saltzman didn't at least move to say 2 perf Techniscope which is how they shot the Ipcress File (Hamilton directed the second in anamorphic). That way they could have gotten the depth of spherical and framed for 2.35:1, saving money and getting the widescreen look without too many lights. While the results would have been grainier it would have been a lot more dramatic with those depthy compositions than the uniform flatness we got on LALD and MWTGG (especially if they had kept Ipcress cameraman Otto Heller and got rid of Ted Moore). Ironically, Martin Campbell and Phil Meheux ran with the Techniscope Ipcress look on CASINO ROYALE (shot on the latter day equivalent of Techniscope, super35).

Money seems like the logical motivator for the decision to shoot flat on these Moore Hamilton movies. Maybe Hamilton prefered to work faster on these ones because of time restrictions on locations. Maybe they stylistically wanted a grittier look for Moore's new films without anamorphic gloss, maybe it was just Hamilton messing up formats again for no reason (again, see Funeral In Berlin). There could be reasons regarding distribution and exhibition too.

Edited by tim partridge, 05 February 2009 - 01:21 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

Yeah, I think 'Live and Let Die' was most likely shot flat for budgetary reasons. Although, I suppose it's also possible that there weren't enough anamorphic lenses available at the time. It still looks pretty good on the big screen, though.

Raymond Benson suggests in his book that 'The Man with the Golden Gun' was originally intended to be a 2.35:1 production.

[MajorB]

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I would swear that somewhere--on a DVD commentary? in one of the many books about the films?--someone stated that it was purely a stylistic choice by the director. I forget what rationale was given (if any), but I remember being surprised to hear/read it, since I would have thought it would be a producer-driven choice.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else, or do I need to change my meds again?

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

It was budgetary, something related to film stock getting more expensive, so they covered by using cheaper cameras. The artistic angle is a fan's assumption that's been given to much credit. If you think of it, LALD and GG came after 18 months of their predecessors rather than 24. UA was worried after OHMSS didn't deliver as well as the Connerys and subsequent films had smaller budgets. All three Mankiewicz Bonds have a cheaper feel than the rest of the series, especially LALD.
What's a pity is that the new DVD/BR releases of DIE and GUN present the films in their US OAR ratio (1.85:1) rather than the original UK AR (1.66:1). These films were shot hard matte (only the film portion intended to be seen on cinema screens was exposed) so the British AR shows the entire image of the film. UA switched to 1.85 somewher between 1968 and 1972.

[Wronschien]

Thanks everyone for the replies, now I see better.
tim partridge, I'm not sure to understand all the technical bits but thanks anyway for the thorough explanation.

[Mr_Wint]

UA was worried after OHMSS didn't deliver as well as the Connerys and subsequent films had smaller budgets.

Budgets:
OHMSS: $7 million
DAF: $7.2 million
LALD: $7 million
TMWTGG: $7 million

And both DAF and LALD were as successful as YOLT so your logic doesn't make sense.

All three Mankiewicz Bonds have a cheaper feel than the rest of the series, especially LALD.

Not a chance.

[Loomis]

Raymond Benson suggests in his book that 'The Man with the Golden Gun' was originally intended to be a 2.35:1 production.

I'm glad it wasn't. I don't see anything wrong with shooting "flat". I'm probably in a minority, but I think widescreen should be the exception, not the norm. I think a film needs a good reason to be in widescreen, usually some kind of epic quality to it*, but it seems to me that far too many movies go the widescreen route "just because" (I mean, why the heck is THE WRESTLER in 2.35:1?). And I think "flat" suits the character of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - I know that that sounds like a backhanded compliment or indeed an outright diss, but it's not intended as such. TMWTGG is my favourite Bond film.

I believe ROCKY BALBOA was shot in Super 35. The trailer is in 2.35:1 widescreen, but for whatever reason (probably because it chimed better with the other films in the series) they chose to release the finished film in standard, non-widescreen ratio.

*And BABEL, for one, shows that a film can be in the "flat" ratio yet still have an epic feel and eye-popping cinematography.

[dee-bee-five]

This is a question that gets asked a lot in Bond fandom and no one seems to have provided the definitive answer. Cost-cutting is often cited as the reason, although I doubt that shooting in widescreen was any more expensive (and many productions with budgets far lower than Bond were using widescreen at the time). Personally, I can only conclude that it was a deliberate stylistic choice on the part of Guy Hamilton to create a new flavour for the Moore era (with echoes of DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, which were shot in the same ratio).

My understanding has always been that it was a cost-cutting move. The irony is, the format of the films (plus Dr. No, FRWL and GF) actually looks better on a device like the Archos 5 - my latest exec toy - than the others.

[Loomis]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

[dee-bee-five]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

Sinclair mcKay makes quite a compelling case in his recent book about cost cutting being painfully obvious throughout The Man With The Golden Gun. I must admit that I had never actually clocked the points he raises but now I can't help but notice them if I watch it. if you haven't read the book, be warned: he doesn't share your love of TMWTGG (but he's very amusing about it).

[Loomis]

Till now, I'd never heard of McKay or his book. Sounds interesting. Do you recommend it?

[dee-bee-five]

Till now, I'd never heard of McKay or his book. Sounds interesting. Do you recommend it?

Very much so. It's opinionated, very opinionated. And you won't agree with him on everything; I doubt anyone could. But even when he's damning films like TMWTGG or LTK, he's just so damned funny about it. Basically, he's someone who loves his Bond, but isn't a fanwanker. He takes the movies for what they are - basically superior entertainment, nothing more - and doesn't regard them as art.

[Loomis]

I must admit, I don't think I've ever encountered a book about Bond that was anything other than entirely dismissive of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

I'm sold on McKay's book, but I'll wait for it to come out in paperback.

[tim partridge]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

I too find it odd that they would cheap out given how normal everything else looked on these Bond movies. Bare in mind also that they had a recent Oscar winner, Ossie Morris, take over as DP from Ted Moore on MWTGG. That wasn't exactly a cheap decision! I also notice that Ted Moore shot Psychomania before LALD so maybe it was just comfort preference (like Meheux shooting CR S35)? I am also wondering if they had their eye on SHAFT too much for LALD and were copying the aspect ratio and shooting format there?

Maybe with inflation the overall productions were becoming more expensive and the camera/lighting department is where they decided to slash the budget? Perhaps they had money to either go to shooting extensively on location or shooting anamorphic and they had to make a hard decision? Maybe Moore or Eon had a deal with the camera hire people and they could bring the camera/lighting in on a small amount that could be used elsewhere?

Maybe it was somehow down to the recession of 1972-74?

The only fact we definitely know is that it is cheaper to shoot flat than anamorphic, especially on Bond. That and both LALD and MWTGG look very cheap in the cinematography dept.



By the way, I am not at all against shooting Bond flat so much as we get the benefits of the format to the max. If you are going to shoot spherical then use as much natural light as possible and take advantage of the format, as with movies like The French Connection. This was the early 70s too when everyone was being innovative with faster filmstock, handheld operating, flashing the negative and pushing the film to enable lower light photography and clever zoom shots (OHMSS actually dabbled in lots of this, and that was 1969 and anamorphic)! If they had gone with that approach on an exotic location filled Bond movie the results could have been staggering, taking advantage of faster spherical lenses. Instead, we got the flat and easy looking TV floodlighting of Thunderball, albeit much more easily achieved with spherical lenses. What a cop out.

Edited by tim partridge, 05 February 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

Maybe it was somehow down to the recession of 1972-74?

The only fact we definitely know is that it is cheaper to shoot flat than anamorphic, especially on Bond. That and both LALD and MWTGG look very cheap in the cinematography dept.

Not only was there a recession in 1972-74, but there was a double whamy of serious inflation caused by the first ever OPEC "oil shock" (referenced in TMWTGG, of course). It was a period of 'stagflation', i.e. both economic stagnation/decline and inflation. In this scenario, money bought you 'less'. So eventhough Mr Wint provides correct budget figures, the reality is that the budget for these movies bought less than OHMSS, for instance. Much in the same way LTK's budget was about the same as Moonraker's...but look at what you could buy with $30-32 mil in 1979 vs what $30-32 mil bought in 1989.

Hope this helps.

[tim partridge]

Now THAT makes sense!

Many thanks

[dee-bee-five]

I must admit, I don't think I've ever encountered a book about Bond that was anything other than entirely dismissive of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

I'm sold on McKay's book, but I'll wait for it to come out in paperback.

Particularly funny is his loathing of the theme song from For Your Eyes Only. He acknowledges he's in a minority and that his hatred is probably irrational - but it doesn't hold him back. Hilarious.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Yes but wasn't the widescreen format unpopular per se in cinema at the time of LALD and MWTGG? I always thought that the Speilberg/Lucas dimension, (Jaws and Star Wars etc) helped to put widesrceen back in fashion again. Of course Broccoli's mantra was to go bigger and better with Spy, so it is logical anamorphic was used for that film anyway.
I am also interested what filmed with Panavision equipment means. I have read that MWTGG was filmed in WS but never released that way, but I'm not convinced by this.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

UA was worried after OHMSS didn't deliver as well as the Connerys and subsequent films had smaller budgets.

Budgets:
OHMSS: $9.5 million
DAF: $10 million
LALD: $12 million
TMWTGG: $13 million

And both DAF and LALD were as successful as YOLT so your logic doesn't make sense.

All three Mankiewicz Bonds have a cheaper feel than the rest of the series, especially LALD.

Not a chance.

Didn't I say UA got worried over OHMSS? Did I say DAF and LALD weren't as succesful? Learn to read the whole bit thoroughly before nitpicking what you disagree with. Figures I'd read put all four films at around 7 million. I'm interested to know where your figures come from (and no, I'm not being dismissive of them as in this guy doen't know nuthin`). You have to remember that a cool 1.2 million out of DAF went to Connery, so the film itself was much cheaper than OHMSS (and the two Moores for that matter). Why in hell would they choose DAF as the followup being as it is Fleming's worst novel? Because they could shoot both locations and studio in the US and fake Bond travelling from the UK (in the end, of course, they had to move back to Pinewood anyway).
Now, if you don't think they look cheaper, that's your opinion, so don't not a chance me. No one hold s the absolute truth on value judgement but I'm not alone in thinking that. Had Saltzman stayed, I fear the films would have eventually degenerated into second rate product and slowly died.

Edited by Donovan Mayne-Nicholls, 05 February 2009 - 04:48 PM.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Yes but wasn't the widescreen format unpopular per se in cinema at the time of LALD and MWTGG? I always thought that the Speilberg/Lucas dimension, (Jaws and Star Wars etc) helped to put widesrceen back in fashion again. Of course Broccoli's mantra was to go bigger and better with Spy, so it is logical anamorphic was used for that film anyway.
I am also interested what filmed with Panavision equipment means. I have read that MWTGG was filmed in WS but never released that way, but I'm not convinced by this.

You have to distinguish between Panavision the process and Panavision the company. At first, panavision only produced anamorphic cameras and lenses (basically an improved clone of Cinemascope), which are heavier and more expensive than the standard ones. LALD were shot matted, meaning that not all the squarer film frame would be seen on screen, allowing for a fake widescreen format. Most films are shot like that to this day.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

You have to take into account that today's attitude towards movie spenditure are completely different from thirty five years ago. Granted, these films weren't low budget but back things were kept under a much tighter rein.
The choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back. Directors make do with what they are allowed unless they produce their own films.
I agree Panavision could have been used and wasn't beyond their means. They just chose not to.
One final thing: for a long I didn't know why they'd moved back to flat either but rather than being contented with my own conclusion, I had to find out. The reason you don't buy the cost-cutting argument is because you think you know the answer. You could hear the explanation straight from the horse´s mouth and still insist not be satisfied.

Edited by Donovan Mayne-Nicholls, 05 February 2009 - 05:05 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Aside from maybe NSNA, I find TMWTGG to be the cheapest looking Bond film of all. I don't know why, it just seems that way to me.

[dee-bee-five]

Aside from maybe NSNA, I find TMWTGG to be the cheapest looking Bond film of all. I don't know why, it just seems that way to me.

I have to say I'm minded to agree. It just feels a little... wan to me....

[Mr_Wint]

Didn't I say UA got worried over OHMSS? Did I say DAF and LALD weren't as succesful? Learn to read the whole bit thoroughly before nitpicking what you disagree with.

You said: "UA was worried after OHMSS didn't deliver as well as the Connerys and subsequent films had smaller budgets". But it seems like the budget was more or less the same for the subsequent films. And DAF/LALD were very succesful so I don't buy your argument.

I think TMWTGG looks very good. Visually stunning.

[tim partridge]

You have to take into account that today's attitude towards movie spenditure are completely different from thirty five years ago. Granted, these films weren't low budget but back things were kept under a much tighter rein.
The choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back. Directors make do with what they are allowed unless they produce their own films.

That's not always true. Phil Meheux has said it was his idea to shoot CR in S35, and even if you doubt that you'll never know who decided what. Even back in the 60s on those Harry Palmer movies, the second one was not shot in the cheaper Techniscope, but 35mm anamorphic, even though they brought back the same DP and ditched the original director. Who made the decision there?

I agree Panavision could have been used and wasn't beyond their means. They just chose not to.

No, you don't know that. Remember too that the budgets listed would have been higher had they shot 35mm anamorphic (i.e. filmed in Panavision). That's a fact.





As for MTWGG,

Peter Murton's design work elevates the really 70s TV ish location photography, but I did notice some nice softer lighting on several interior sequences that demonstrate the trademarks of Ossie Morris. I seem to remember the Maud Adams bedroom stuff stuck out particularly, as well as Scaramanga's exploding lair. There's still loads of Hailton's quirky visual direction too (the wide angle lenses, Hitchcockian low angle shots) but most of it is terribly phoned in and half assed.

Edited by tim partridge, 06 February 2009 - 03:40 PM.

[tim partridge]

Yes but wasn't the widescreen format unpopular per se in cinema at the time of LALD and MWTGG?

That's actually a really interesting point when you consider that of the five films nominated for a cinematography Oscar in 1974, only two were shot anamorphic. In fact best picture that year, The Sting, was shot flat.

You make a really good point that is pretty plausible. Infact, with everything these days shot super35, it gives me great hope that the next 007 film will be a spectacular return to anamorphic in the Rog' sense.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Didn't I say UA got worried over OHMSS? Did I say DAF and LALD weren't as succesful? Learn to read the whole bit thoroughly before nitpicking what you disagree with.

You said: "UA was worried after OHMSS didn't deliver as well as the Connerys and subsequent films had smaller budgets". But it seems like the budget was more or less the same for the subsequent films. And DAF/LALD were very succesful so I don't buy your argument.

I think TMWTGG looks very good. Visually stunning.

If the decision wasn't to keep the budget from rising, why didn't they spend more in LALD after DAF was such a big success? Why didn't they significantly spend more in GG after LALD proved DAF was not an isolated case? They controlled the budgets, just like they'd do during the 80's after MGM bought UA. The expectations had lowered. Basically, we'll keep making money by no t raising the budgets. And that's why GG was a relative disappointment. It's not the plot, it's not that it's slow-paced. people got wiser that Saltzman and Broccoli were no longer delivering bigger and better and the box office suffered.
I'm curious as to how I would have felt had I been old enough in '73 and '74 to have seen both films on their original release. I did feel that QOS looked VERY CHEAP considering the exhorbitant amount of money they spent on it and when one's supposed to wait two years to watch something that doesn't deliver to the level one's used to, it leaves a sour after taste. Had I seen Die and Gun back then, I think I'd have felt cheated. they're not bad films. they're entertaining but they're definitely the kind of films one's more forgiving about when watching them on TV.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

You have to take into account that today's attitude towards movie spenditure are completely different from thirty five years ago. Granted, these films weren't low budget but back things were kept under a much tighter rein.
The choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back. Directors make do with what they are allowed unless they produce their own films.

That's not always true. Phil Meheux has said it was his idea to shoot CR in S35, and even if you doubt that you'll never know who decided what. Even back in the 60s on those Harry Palmer movies, the second one was not shot in the cheaper Techniscope, but 35mm anamorphic, even though they brought back the same DP and ditched the original director. Who made the decision there?

Read between the lines: "Directors make do with what they are allowed" doesn't mean they're always given restrictions. Sometimes they're allowed more freedom. Guy Hamilton wasn't even given the choice of DP and editor in GF. He'd to make do with Young's people (and incidentally he made a far better film than Mr Forster, who pretty much jettisoned all regulars in order to achieve his "vision"). IPCRESS was produced by Saltzman alone and I've always suspected (out of what people say about on interviews) that he was the cheapskate in the partnership, trying to cut corners here and there. Even in the spy-crazy 60's there was no way of predicting how any of these clones (yes, I love IPCRESS and I'm not rying to imply anything other than it wouldn't have existed hadn't been for Bond, not even the novel) would perform @ the BO. Techniscope was the 60's Super 35 in that you could fake anamorphic with it and it meant a significant budget reduction on that first film. After IPCRESS was succesful enough to grant shooting BERLIN, I reckon the reins got a little looser. In between IPCRESS and BERLIN, Heller shot ALFIE, again in Techniscope, so if we were to deduce anything out of so little evidence, I'd say he prefered Techniscope and only shot BERLIN in Panavision @ the producer's insistence.
I don't think anybody was going to prevent Meheux from shooting in a cheaper format.

I agree Panavision could have been used and wasn't beyond their means. They just chose not to.

No, you don't know that. Remember too that the budgets listed would have been higher had they shot 35mm anamorphic (i.e. filmed in Panavision). That's a fact.




As for MTWGG,

Peter Murton's design work elevates the really 70s TV ish location photography, but I did notice some nice softer lighting on several interior sequences that demonstrate the trademarks of Ossie Morris. I seem to remember the Maud Adams bedroom stuff stuck out particularly, as well as Scaramanga's exploding lair. There's still loads of Hailton's quirky visual direction too (the wide angle lenses, Hitchcockian low angle shots) but most of it is terribly phoned in and half assed.